Appeal No.2003-0078 Page 4
Application No.09/257,066
as an ammonium salt. See, e.g., column 3, line 60 through column
4, line 8, column 4, line 52 through column 5, line 12, column 5,
line 67 through column 6, line 15, column 9, lines 9-19 and
column 11, lines 7-20 of Falk ‘967. Also, see, e.g., column 8,
lines 43-57, column 9, lines 43-48, column 10, lines 32-34, and
column 11, lines 5-10 of Falk ‘286. Based on those disclosures
and for the reasons set forth in the answer, we agree with the
examiner’s determination that one of ordinary skill in the art
following the teachings of either of the applied Falk patents
would have been led to a composition as set forth in
representative appealed claim 1.
Appellants note that Falk ‘967: (1) does not furnish an
example or prefer using an ammonium salt electrolyte; (2) prefers
an anionic fluorinated surfactant; and suggests that a
combination of an amphoteric fluorinated surfactant and an
amphoteric non-fluorinated surfactant do not perform
satisfactorily without a fluorinated synergist. Furthermore,
appellants note that Falk ‘286 includes ion pair complexes in an
aqueous film forming foam and is otherwise similar to Falk ‘967.
Based on those observations, appellants argue that the Falk
patents would not have led one of ordinary skill in the art to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007